In today's Times, Gail Collins packs a lot of punch into a little op-ed.
She brings up a question offered by Chris Matthews in the last president debate. Are we ever going to get back to the time when a middle class family can live on one income?
Collins thinks that there is no turning back. "Matthews could just as easily have demanded to know when we’ll get back to using manual typewriters and rotary phones." Sad, but probably true.
So, if two incomes are mandatory for the basics of middle class life -- home, car, kids, dog, then childcare is now a necessity for most families. Those babies don't raise themselves. Yet, where is the child-care discussion in this presidential debate?
We live in a country where quality child care is controversial. It was one of the very first issues to be swift-boated by social conservatives. In 1971, Congress actually passed a comprehensive child care bill that was vetoed by Richard Nixon. The next time the bill came up, members were flooded with mail accusing them of being anti-family communists who wanted to let kids sue their parents if they were forced to go to church. It scared the heck out of everybody.
Right now, the only parents who routinely get serious child-care assistance from the government are extremely poor mothers in welfare-to-work programs. Even for them, the waiting lists tend to be ridiculously long. In many states, once the woman actually gets a job, she loses the day care. Middle-class families get zip, even though a decent private child care program costs $12,000 a year in some parts of the country.
Collins says Chris Dodd is better on childcare issues than Hillary. Hillary has put forward some meager childcare policies. She does have one medium-sized program for family leave. Collins complains that Hillary of all people should get the issues of working moms, but hasn't done enough. Her policies help some women stay at home, but nothing for the working moms.
I'm glad that Hillary has a good plan for family leave and am a bit irritated at Collins for dismissing it entirely. I think we need to help parents of either gender stay at home with their children when needed. But for many, two jobs are essential. Those families need assistance, too.
I'm seeing a growing irritation among the female pundits and bloggers at Hillary for not doing enough to help her gender. Hillary, who is all about strategy, must know that she gains nothing, and loses more, by being strong in this area. Hillary is most likely afraid of losing the male vote, if she plays the chick card too hard. Too many people are irritated at the working moms.
And the numbers are probably not there. There's not enough consensus on the issue of childcare. Too much assumption that women should be doing everything well. Too much guilt on our part to speak more strongly on this topic. Too little education about the state of childcare today. Gotta keep talking about it, fellow bloggers.